Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:43:53 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] serdev: Replace serdev_device_write_buf with serdev_device_write |
| |
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Andrey Smirnov >> <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, what I would see if no one objects is patch series of two: >> 1) introduction of new API >> 2) removing old one. >> >> It will benefit for easier review and any potential code anthropologist. >> > > Second version of the patch preserves the old API an just > re-implements it in terms of a new one. I am not sure I see the > benefit in splitting it into two patches, but I'll leave it up to Rob > to decide.
Sure. At least I posted benefits I see from splitting.
+ bisectability (in case we have to revert your new API by some reason it will be easier, hope will be not the case, though...)
>>> + } while (count && >>> + (timeout = wait_for_completion_timeout(&serdev->write_comp, >>> + timeout))); >> >> So, would it be better to support interrupts here and return a >> corresponding error code to the user? >> > > I don't have a use-case for that and as far as I can tell, neither SPI > nor I2C slave device API offer such functionality universally, so I am > inclined to say no. Since the change from wait_for_completion to > wait_for_completion_timeout was made per Rob's request, I'd leave it > up to him to decided about this change as well.
OK.
>> Besides that question, readability might be better if you use >> temporary variable and pack above on one line: >> >> unsigned long to = timeout; >> >> } while (count && (to = ...(to))); >> > > Even if you shorten 'timeout' to 'to', formatted as a single line, > it'd still exceed line length limitations.
How many? If we are talking about 2-3 characters, that's okay to leave them on one line.
>>> + * @write_lock Mutext used to esure exclusive access to the bus when >>> + * writing data with serdev_device_write() >> >> checkpatch.pl has integrated spellchecker AFAIU. > > My bad, forgot to enable it as a git hook, will fix. > >> Moreover, can you try harder to make that description shorter? >> > > I am all ears for suggestions alternative phrasing, otherwise, no, > that's about as hard as I try.
First of all, "used to" is (closer) equivalent to was. Second, Mutex is one letter longer than Lock (here is important that is just a kind of lock). Third, "exclusive" is implied by Mutex / Lock word. Fourth, "access to the bus when writing data" too verbose.
So, my suggestion is (two variants): a) "Lock to serialize bus access when writing data." b) "Lock to serialize access when writing data with serdev_device_write()."
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |